Talk:First edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Encyclopædia Britannica First Edition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020084752/http://corporate.britannica.com/company_info.html to http://corporate.britannica.com/company_info.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Typo in original source?

Is the typo "Elecricity" in the Sources used section intended? Renerpho (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move the first four; consensus against moving Britannica.com. This is a dispute between natural and parenthetical disambiguation, with both sides having policy equally on their side. In these circumstances we assess the strength of support for the various positions among the community and find that there is roughly twice as much for moving as against. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

---

• Encyclopædia Britannica (first edition) → First edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica
• Encyclopædia Britannica (second edition) → Second edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica
• Encyclopædia Britannica (third edition) → Third edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica
• Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition → Eleventh edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica
• Britannica.com → Online edition of the Encyclopædia BritannicaOnline edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica

– The individual editions of the Britannica do not appear to have had consistent naming schemes nor clear official titles, including the online edition. Per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:Descriptive title, I am thus requesting that these articles be styled "X edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica", including any future articles on the other editions. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 21:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support via WP:CONSISTENT per the OP @Howardcorn33 Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose moving Britannica.com per WP:CONCISE. The online version is not a meaningfully distinct "edition", unlike the others, so to use the term "edition" in the title it is misleading. Britannica.com does not merely just include the encyclopedia, but also stuff like games that are totally outside the remit of an encyclopedia. I would be okay with moving the title to Britannica Online or Encyclopædia Britannica Online, which a considerable number of recent sources use to describe the current website. No opinion on the name formatting of the book editions other than I agree they should be consistent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Seeing that the website is a special case, I'm willing to make an exception for it here. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Consistency in the style Encyclopædia Britannica (first edition) is more WP:CONCISE and natural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wh1pla5h99 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support all except Britannica.com for consistency. For that case, I am fine with either alternative proposed by Hemiauchenia or keeping the current title. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Books/Reference works task force, WikiProject Books, and WikiProject Scotland have been notified of this discussion. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: The title is the natural title for each of these articles, disambiguated by the edition. I'd suggest moving the 11th ed for consistency. PamD 11:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Natural disambiguation is preferred per WP:NATURAL. So the three articles that have not used natural disambiguation should change to Encyclopædia Britannica First Edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Second Edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Third Edition. ~2026-13057-43 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's not true. WP:NATURAL says it is "sometimes preferred". It is just one of various ways to disambiguate, another being WP:PARENTHDIS. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  A parenthetical disambiguator implies each individual edition is known as simply “Encyclopaedia Britannica”. This would lead to an odd construction such as: “The Encyclopaedia Britannica is the second edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.” The truth is that the individual editions did not have unique names (except the fifteenth edition, which was sometimes known as “Britannica 3”). ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support first 4 for natural disambiguation, oppose 5 per concise Red Slash 18:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Support all except Britannica.com. Amberkitten (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support all except Britannica.com for WP:NATURAL disambiguation. SnowFire (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Britannica.com; rename the rest as natural disambiguation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Support except for Britannica.com per Red Slash GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose all. The names are absolutely fine as they are, reflect the true WP:COMMONNAME of each of these editions (which is simply Encyclopaedida Britannica) and they are readable and concise. Moving to a less good title just for the case of "natural disambiguation" does not help readers and I see no reason to change the working status quo.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  How does this apply for the move requests on the eleventh edition and online version? Those ones have a different naming pattern already. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  Oh well, in that case I would support moving that one to Encyclopædia Britannica (eleventh edition) to match the others. And Britannica.com is fine for the online edition anyway, that's a different kettle of fish and the web domain is an established name for it.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.